ASO is upset over a relatively minor but widely agreed licensing
reform that would allow a measure of greater economic stability
for the teams. The privately owned firm has often acted against
the interests of the greater sport, at times seeming to undermine the basis of its own business
model — cutting off its nose to spite its face.

The core challenge for pro cycling is obvious. The Tour de
France is the one “super-marquee” competition of the sport —
the only event in the sport where teams and sponsors can really
profit. Don’t participate in the Tour, and you’re not going to
make any money in this sport; it’s that simple. And ASO intends
to do everything it can to protect its unique asset, regardless
of the implications for everyone else.

The Tour de France may be the key event in pro cycling, but it is
also an anchor holding the sport back. So why not replace it? It
is time to break the deadlock of the sport’s power structure and
move it out from under ASO’s de-facto control. And move it toward
a more sustainable economic system that expands the revenue
potential and creates a model for equitable profit sharing.

There are ways the sport could sidestep the Tour de
France. Indeed, if most of the teams and other stakeholders could
unite and move away from the overwhelming focus on the Tour, this
could potentially solve many of pro cycling’s economic and
governance problems — and recast ASO as more of a partner in the
sport’s continued evolution.

What more audacious proposal could possibly be made? At first
glance, nothing could more quickly enrage cycling’s stakeholders
and its millions of fans across the world. Yet it is exactly this
kind of “outside the box” thinking that could lead to much-needed
changes and new incentives for the sport.

Consider one scenario.

The two most powerful
people in cycling — Jean-Étienne Amaury, president of the Amaury
Sport Organization, which owns the Tour de France, and Brian
Cookson, president of the International Cycling Union — are at
loggerheads.Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters;
Bryn Lennon/Getty

What if Italy’s national race, the Giro d’Italia, was moved to
the first part of July — directly opposite the Tour? This would
require only two big changes. First, the key pro teams would have
to commit to race the Giro, rather than the Tour. Second, Giro
owner RCS Sport would have to reschedule its race.

The Italian government might have to withstand the entreaties or
threats that the French government might raise. But with these
changes, the monopolistic control of ASO could be broken
overnight.

Timing the Giro with Europe’s high vacation season would ensure
greater roadside fan attendance, a higher continental viewership,
and the massive tourism advantages historically claimed by the
Tour. Italy is a beautiful country, too, and teams wouldn’t have
to worry so much about racing through its snow-packed passes in
May.

The higher profile would generate higher television revenues,
enriching RCS. Sharing some of that revenue with the teams could
cement the incentive to participate; RCS is one of the few race
organizers to have shared TV revenues with teams in the past, and
the promise of funds could be used to lock-in “early adopters.”

The key prerequisite is that all key stakeholders have to act in
unison. A forceful leader would have to command this effort, and
work in conjunction with the owners of the Giro, to commit the
teams and all of the accompanying logistics to support the
change.

But the key premise is that it could be done even if it
was not unanimous. A Giro focused on reform and contested by most
of the top WorldTour teams would be more entertaining — and
economically valuable — than a Tour de France contested among a
few French and second-tier regional teams.

ASO would no doubt retaliate and possibly blackball the renegade
teams from its other events, but this isn’t insurmountable.
Sponsorship interests drive the sport, and so an alternative
calendar schedule or league arrangement would also have to be
organized.

Additionally, elevating the Giro to the main event could
accelerate change by providing openings for several other major
races to compete on the global stage, adding more pressure for
ASO to change its model.

Jean-Paul Pelissier/Reuters

This plan may sound improbable, but cycling needs to try
something new, even if it enrages purists and unravels more than
a hundred years of tradition. It is exactly the kind of creative
disruption that has reinvigorated many other industries; it could
be just the nudge cycling needs to finally address its core
problems.

It is commonly lamented around cycling that “nothing will ever
change so long as the ASO is in charge.” But pro cycling is
capable of moving beyond ASO’s virtual monopoly. As former Giro
director Michele Acquarone — still one of the more innovative
thinkers the sport has seen — puts it, “We need to mix some
‘outside the box’ provocations with a diplomatic approach.”

Breaking away from the Tour de France could force ASO to become a
more positive and collaborative partner with the sport's
stakeholders. This would free up cycling to adopt a whole range
of reforms, encourage more fan participation, expose new markets,
and diversify the revenue streams to better promote the growth
and vitality of the whole sport.

This could all happen if cycling could agree that its best friend
might just be its worst enemy.